PK Subban Signed - Round 3! Fight!

[Lafleurs Guy]

New and improved. This time with a poll so you can weigh in without posting.

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

New and improved. This time with a poll so you can weigh in without posting.

I think you can't fix stupid, and I'm not certainly not talking about Subban's contract.

 

[HabsRockBruinsChoke]

I think you can't fix stupid, and I'm not certainly not talking about Subban's contract.

PK might not have found his current form if it wasn't for the bridge. He probably could've declined in points like he did from freshman to sophomore year if he jumped right into a long-term contract.

 

[Compile]

I think you can't fix stupid, and I'm not certainly not talking about Subban's contract.

If you mean stupid by people still arguing over this, than yes you can't fix stupid.

He's signed. Let it go. Go enjoy this beautiful Fall season we are having.

 

[MXD]

If you mean stupid by people still arguing over this, than yes you can't fix stupid.

He's signed. Let it go. Go enjoy this beautiful Fall season we are having.

Bingo.

Actually, if at least people were arguing about the right thing -- whether Subban should've been presented a very serious and and subsequently signed by Jan 1st 2014 -- then yeah, the contract discussions would make sense.

Now it's just a (not very) select few that engages in Chest Thumping, Lucic-apish-style.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Still think the first negotiation with Subban was poorly done. Bridge was a bad idea and lowballing even worse. I think it cost us more to get Subban signed now than it would have if MB hadn't leveraged his position of power to the maximum the first time around leaving himself in a vulnerable position with an all-star afterwards.

BUT... how can you be mad at MB now that he's signed for 8 years ?

It could have been better, but disaster averted and that was the important thing here.

 

[SAKS AVENUE]

PK might not have found his current form if it wasn't for the bridge. He probably could've declined in points like he did from freshman to sophomore year if he jumped right into a long-term contract.

I agree with this. You don't just give out money to a kid after a few good to decent years. Bridge deal is so the player can prove his worth and get the money. It happened .....everyone wins.

Let's just say Subban bombed out in those two yrs of the bridge deal, he wouldn't be getting 9mil that's for sure. Say he bombed out and we had signed him for 5 years at 6mil How would you feel about that?

The bridge deal is a good thing to have, and since Subban did it so will everyone else. I support it fully!

 

[Gamimenos]

PK might not have found his current form if it wasn't for the bridge. He probably could've declined in points like he did from freshman to sophomore year if he jumped right into a long-term contract.

Although everything you state is entirely possible, for me it breaks down to Subban for 10 years >>> Subban for 5 (or whatever it would be without a bridge deal)

 

[Team_Spirit]

 

[Kriss E]

Although everything you state is entirely possible, for me it breaks down to Subban for 10 years >>> Subban for 5 (or whatever it would be without a bridge deal)

You are ignoring the fact you're comparing 2 contracts vs 1.

 

[Kriss E]

Yeah, it's lame when you dont have what it takes to understand simple concepts. I know everything has only two sides in your mind, your side and the one you fight against, but that's not how it works in real world, not everything is black or white.

Simple concepts like understanding there's different levels of expectations out of a 5 year plan to rebuild?

and in this particular case, it's pretty obvious why it's a stupid idea to think years X are better/worses than year Y.

It is based on the time frame the GM was given mixed in with the prime years of our youngsters as well as veterans mainly Plekanec and Markov.
It's clear you haven't understood this yet.

first because your idea that next 3 years are the most important ones doesnt make any sense, none. simply because it's clear to anyone but you that the Habs will not be going all in this season (year 1) and that year 3 will be without half our actual forward group, without Budaj, Weaver and Gilbert as well... that's way too many new faces or contracts to renew to have even a vague idea of what the team will look like... this is year 1 and 3 of what you think are the more important years... so they're more important why ? cause we MAY content in year 2 of the three important ones ?

They weren't going all in last year either, unless you think adding Briere-Parros-Murray meant going all in. And yet, look at that, Bergevin traded away picks and prospect for a rental (something he said he didn't want to do) and we ended up being 2 games away from the cup.
Let me ask you, if we do take a step back this year, don't contend the following year, and then again barely improve over the following year. You think Bergevin gets an extension?? Five years and still not contending? I guess people have just gotten used to mediocrity in Mtl.

as for the other side, year 4+, it would be as dumb to prentend they're more (or less for that matter) important as the list of players who needs to be replaced/re-signed is even longer.

Precisely why the next few years are more important.
You have 5 years to turn a franchise around. If by year 3-4-5 you're not particularly better than the first two years, there's a major problem.

I know, it's hard to get for you as you're always in fighting mode and you HAVE to be right about it, but the idea there's MORE important years (year 1 to 3) only exist in your head.

I really love this self righteous approach you have
What's sad and pathetic is that you don't even see the irony in your words.

 

[Lshap]

Bingo.

Actually, if at least people were arguing about the right thing -- whether Subban should've been presented a very serious and and subsequently signed by Jan 1st 2014 -- then yeah, the contract discussions would make sense.

Now it's just a (not very) select few that engages in Chest Thumping, Lucic-apish-style.

I've been wondering the same thing. The bridge deal was just part-one of the story; part-two was the follow-up this year. The two are strategically linked, because Meehan and Bergevin agreed on the bridge, knowing full well they'd be seeing each other again in a year. Bottom line - I'm okay with how it ended, but I'm very curious why this couldn't have come together months earlier.

Was anything on the table this past January? If so, what? Who was responsible for holding out until the very last friggin second? Was Bergevin being cheap, was Meehan being intransigent, or did both parties only get their middle-age butts in gear at the end of July? No way to know how much a part of the design it was to wait until the very end.

 

[habitue*]

While a bunch of folks who will never win in their whole life what P.K. Is gonna make over 7 months of a single hockey season, are spending precious hours arguing about a contract, Subban is laughing his ass out all the way to the bank.

 

[Big Lurk]

Omg what is there left to discuss on this matter?

 

[Et le But]

Omg what is there left to discuss on this matter?

Can he fight?

 

[Kriss E]

I've been wondering the same thing. The bridge deal was just part-one of the story; part-two was the follow-up this year. The two are strategically linked, because Meehan and Bergevin agreed on the bridge, knowing full well they'd be seeing each other again in a year. Bottom line - I'm okay with how it ended, but I'm very curious why this couldn't have come together months earlier.

Was anything on the table this past January? If so, what? Who was responsible for holding out until the very last friggin second? Was Bergevin being cheap, was Meehan being intransigent, or did both parties only get their middle-age butts in gear at the end of July? No way to know how much a part of the design it was to wait until the very end.

People were just disappointed in seeing our GM hold PK out for a below value bridge deal his first time negotiating, and now again seemingly be incapable to reach an agreement within a reasonable amount of time needing to wait until the very last minute before finally getting it done.

 

[MXD]

I've been wondering the same thing. The bridge deal was just part-one of the story; part-two was the follow-up this year. The two are strategically linked, because Meehan and Bergevin agreed on the bridge, knowing full well they'd be seeing each other again in a year. Bottom line - I'm okay with how it ended, but I'm very curious why this couldn't have come together months earlier.

Was anything on the table this past January? If so, what? Who was responsible for holding out until the very last friggin second? Was Bergevin being cheap, was Meehan being intransigent, or did both parties only get their middle-age butts in gear at the end of July? No way to know how much a part of the design it was to wait until the very end.

According to some reports, MB (let keep things simple) made a very serious offer to PK (let's keep things simple) the day before the hearing, or just before the hearing.

8.25 x 8.

That offer should've been presented on January 1st. Not on August 2nd. That is what kindof annoyed me. Not the bridge deal... not in the slightest.

 

[Lshap]

People were just disappointed in seeing our GM hold PK out for a below value bridge deal his first time negotiating, and now again seemingly be incapable to reach an agreement within a reasonable amount of time needing to wait until the very last minute before finally getting it done.

Your perspective that it's Bergevin who held PK hostage and Bergevin who was incapable of reaching an agreement is based on nothing but your own skew.

Plenty of people have the opposite skew - that the bridge was good, that PK needed to earn it, that Meehan was playing hardball, whatever. I'm closer but not completely on this side.

Point is, we can go around and around and around replaying our personal skews again and again. None of it will change anyone's mind because it's skew-versus-skew, without any hard facts to prove either side.

You and I get along pretty well despite our disagreements, so I ask this as a 'friend': Why bother putting so much energy into this?

 

[Lshap]

According to some reports, MB (let keep things simple) made a very serious offer to PK (let's keep things simple) the day before the hearing, or just before the hearing.

8.25 x 8.

That offer should've been presented on January 1st. Not on August 2nd. That is what kindof annoyed me. Not the bridge deal... not in the slightest.

Agreed. Good chance Subban signs for that amount back in January. But the two parties had undoubtedly talked back then and discussed numbers. Gotta wonder how far off they were in January and what was on the table, if anything.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Simple concepts like understanding there's different levels of expectations out of a 5 year plan to rebuild?

It is based on the time frame the GM was given mixed in with the prime years of our youngsters as well as veterans mainly Plekanec and Markov.
It's clear you haven't understood this yet.

They weren't going all in last year either, unless you think adding Briere-Parros-Murray meant going all in. And yet, look at that, Bergevin traded away picks and prospect for a rental (something he said he didn't want to do) and we ended up being 2 games away from the cup.
Let me ask you, if we do take a step back this year, don't contend the following year, and then again barely improve over the following year. You think Bergevin gets an extension?? Five years and still not contending? I guess people have just gotten used to mediocrity in Mtl.

Precisely why the next few years are more important.
You have 5 years to turn a franchise around. If by year 3-4-5 you're not particularly better than the first two years, there's a major problem.


I really love this self righteous approach you have
What's sad and pathetic is that you don't even see the irony in your words.

well, when the GM says in medias that he's willing to take a stepback and then proceed to let go of the captain and trade a guy who was playing on the first pairing while being a leader (for a pick in TWO years btw), there's something for you to understand... like for example : he didnt just said something, he also acted according to that something ? you know...

and whatever you may think of the timeframe, reality is different, highly doubt MB mention a possible setback if he isnt in synch with his boss, not after last season where we went to the ECF...


precisely why ? huh what ? there's nothing to see.



and you're not fighting huh ?

 

[Gamimenos]

You are ignoring the fact you're comparing 2 contracts vs 1.

The one contract wouldn't keep him here for 10 years.

 

[Goldthorpe]

I would have taken to arbitration deal.

 

[Big Lurk]

Can he fight?

 

[Cole Caulifield]

The one contract wouldn't keep him here for 10 years.

The 1 contract could have been followed by another one.. shock.. gasp... and then it could have been more than 10 years.. wow mind blown? I mean, Subban could have just went to arbitration, then done it again next year and been an UFA if that is all he wanted. So why wouldn't he have signed after a 5 year deal ?

Why do people argue for the sake of arguing and have such bad faith?

 

[Gamimenos]

The 1 contract could have been followed by another one.. shock.. gasp... and then it could have been more than 10 years.. wow mind blown?

Could be followed by another team's contract too. Not worth the risk. Shock gasp? No...